Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.

£850m is roughly what it should have cost. I think Multiplex quoted a build cost roughly in that ball-park (fixed price) and also stated that there was no chance it would be completed by December 2018.

Mace low-balled (not a fixed price quote though) and claimed they could have the stadium ready for the start of the 18/19 season. Levy went with the cheap (but not fixed price) option that also gave the earlier completion timetable. Mace seem to have over-promised and under-delivered.

There will be plenty of people at Multiplex muttering "told you so" in the direction of Levy and Lewis.

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"

Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.

They have always been a club that spent fuck all for their players, which is why Pochettino is very essential for them in the next 5 years, if he stays that long. To remain competitive they need to secure this manager’s future with them and hope he can keep them chugging along like now. They didn’t spend a penny last summer and they are still in the semis after beating a club that spent £150m per season.

For me, I too hope our owners can convince our manager to keep going until he truly retires from football, with a very, very good succession planning. While we didn’t burnt £1b on a stadium rebuild, we are also very dependent on the man who pace around the touch line at game day.

Well-Known Member

Sorry I got the facts re our new stand slightly out but I think my wider point survives. This very old article (2004) suggests building costs of £5k per seat for an iconic stadium including hospitality etc.

Developers are in the grip of football fever, building iconic stadiums that will revive out-of-town areas. We look at the challenges in design, security and crowd control and highlights the retail and hospitality potential

www.building.co.uk

If we allow for inflation in the intervening period to say double the costs then we are still only looking at £10k per seat. Spurs seem to have paid £16k per seat which seems massively over the top. I don’t think Levi is a stupid man but builders are brilliant at exploiting contractual loopholes and every tradesmen in London knew that the construction was running late and spurs were desperate. Anecdotally I heard that at one point the electricians on the site were being paid over £1000 per day and sitting around reading their phones because the other tradesmen weren’t ready for them. Only pub talk obviously but I heard it more than once. Anyway it’s their problem but thank the lord our project seemed to go a lot more smoothly.

£1000 a day was a myth, i work in the same industry for a competitor of the builders Mace, however There were electricians being paid £450 a day for a 12hr day, which is about double that of what they usually can expect for a project in London. This put a massive labour strain on resources for labour in London, as every tradesman wanted to work on that stadium, was impossible to recruit for other projects.

The original budget £450m budget was banded about at least 10 years ago and construction costs have moved on massively since then ( particularly in London ) . £850m then dont forget a massive part of that increase included the NFL pitch ( which wasnt in the original budget ) is probably more realistic than the £1.2b number.

No doubt there were additional costs for delays and such like, and losses Spurs would have been looking to recover from the builder Mace for not completing on time, but its unlikely Mace agreed a fixed sum with Spurs for the construction as in projects like this it's near on impossible to mitigate the risk of such a massive scheme.

We appear to have got a very good deal on our stadium, at the right time as well, as the builder Carillion have now gone to the dogs.

Well-Known Member

£850m is roughly what it should have cost. I think Multiplex quoted a build cost roughly in that ball-park (fixed price) and also stated that there was no chance it would be completed by December 2018.

Mace low-balled (not a fixed price quote though) and claimed they could have the stadium ready for the start of the 18/19 season. Levy went with the cheap (but not fixed price) option that also gave the earlier completion timetable. Mace seem to have over-promised and under-delivered.

There will be plenty of people at Multiplex muttering "told you so" in the direction of Levy and Lewis.

FSG PR plant

Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.

FSG PR plant

£1000 a day was a myth, i work in the same industry for a competitor of the builders Mace, however There were electricians being paid £450 a day for a 12hr day, which is about double that of what they usually can expect for a project in London. This put a massive labour strain on resources for labour in London, as every tradesman wanted to work on that stadium, was impossible to recruit for other projects.

The original budget £450m budget was banded about at least 10 years ago and construction costs have moved on massively since then ( particularly in London ) . £850m then dont forget a massive part of that increase included the NFL pitch ( which wasnt in the original budget ) is probably more realistic than the £1.2b number.

No doubt there were additional costs for delays and such like, and losses Spurs would have been looking to recover from the builder Mace for not completing on time, but its unlikely Mace agreed a fixed sum with Spurs for the construction as in projects like this it's near on impossible to mitigate the risk of such a massive scheme.

We appear to have got a very good deal on our stadium, at the right time as well, as the builder Carillion have now gone to the dogs.

You can bet that if the electricians were seeing £450/day, by the time it arrived at the high level billing, it would not have been far off £1000 per day. Two layers applying a markup of around 40% gets you close.

TIA Regular

Not convinced of that. He lost control of the stadium project, and his club will be carrying a significant debt for years as a result. He has done so right as his club had the most promising concentration of talent it has had in at least a generation. You could easily argue that they are 1-2 players away from being able to compete for league and Europe at the highest level. Instead, they are running 3rd well back in the league, look spent playing in a CL semi-final, and are very likely to lose more talent than they bring in this summer.

Undoubtedly a very intelligent man, but seems either to have a poor sense of the big picture, or overconfidence in the ability of the improved stadium revenue to create a chance like this for his club again. Had FSG done to LFC what Levy has done to Spurs, SoS would be in full activist mode demanding they sell the club.

TIA Regular

Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.

Well-Known Member

I don't expect City level net spending, and there has been loads of good work done by the club under FSG on and off the pitch.

But Liverpool Football Club is wealthy enough to have better back up forwards than Origi and Sturridge.

We should not be relying on three quality players for three forward positions with no back up.

One injury to one of them should not require a central midfielder to be playing at 9, because the back ups are too poor to start.

FSG should take advantage of Klopp being here, by enabling the addition of quality depth throughout the squad, not exploiting him being here and getting us close to trophies, but never actually winning them because he doesn't have the tools he needs.

Internet Terrorist

Sorry I got the facts re our new stand slightly out but I think my wider point survives. This very old article (2004) suggests building costs of £5k per seat for an iconic stadium including hospitality etc.

Developers are in the grip of football fever, building iconic stadiums that will revive out-of-town areas. We look at the challenges in design, security and crowd control and highlights the retail and hospitality potential

www.building.co.uk

If we allow for inflation in the intervening period to say double the costs then we are still only looking at £10k per seat. Spurs seem to have paid £16k per seat which seems massively over the top. I don’t think Levi is a stupid man but builders are brilliant at exploiting contractual loopholes and every tradesmen in London knew that the construction was running late and spurs were desperate. Anecdotally I heard that at one point the electricians on the site were being paid over £1000 per day and sitting around reading their phones because the other tradesmen weren’t ready for them. Only pub talk obviously but I heard it more than once. Anyway it’s their problem but thank the lord our project seemed to go a lot more smoothly.

★★★★★★

I don't expect City level net spending, and there has been loads of good work done by the club under FSG on and off the pitch.

But Liverpool Football Club is wealthy enough to have better back up forwards than Origi and Sturridge.

We should not be relying on three quality players for three forward positions with no back up.

One injury to one of them should not require a central midfielder to be playing at 9, because the back ups are too poor to start.

FSG should take advantage of Klopp being here, by enabling the addition of quality depth throughout the squad, not exploiting him being here and getting us close to trophies, but never actually winning them because he doesn't have the tools he needs.

Copy and paste job from the Klopp thread or simply half of your posts for the last few years?

We can't do everything at once. We were devastating in attack last year but vulnerable at the back. This year we've scored even more goals at the same time as nearly halving the goals conceded so now we've got the best defence in the league when last year it ranked fourth.

Do you honestly believe that Sturridge and Origi will still be our first choice back up for the front three next year?!

I'm confident that we're going to have the best squad and first XI in my lifetime next year.

At least some Carillion businesses were simply sold off whole to meet obligations, leaving most of the workforce employed. I don't know the numbers for the UK, but the Canadian operations were financially viable - insolvency protection was a result of the collapse of the parent. The vast majority of the employees remained in their jobs

"— The club’s ownership changed hands and was owned for more than 50 years by the Moores family, who made their fortune from the locally based Littlewoods pools and shopping empire."

You've said that is incorrect but the only evidence you've produced is to show that David Moores, on his own, did not hold a majority stake in Liverpool before 1994. But that doesn't refute the assertion that the Moores family owned a majority stake particularly as you've only accounted for the ownership of 4,115 shares out of 12,000 of the issued shares prior to 1994.

Reuters seem to believe that of the 12,000 issued shares more than 6,000 were in the control of the Moores family. David had 3,111 so of the 7,885 shares unaccounted for do you know that at least 2,890 were not in the control of the Moores family or do you just not have any evidence either way?

★★★★★★

Thats easy as factual. The history of ownership is as of 1930 there were 12,000 Liverpool shares. In the absence of dividends shares provided little benefit besides season tickets/priority access to cup games etc.

The major shareholder at the time was a man called John Smith he had 1001 shares.

Over time ownership passed hands and Thomas "Valintine" Willams was the majority shareholder. He was the majority shareholder in the 60s, and resisted John Moores approaches. Very few of the 12000 shares typically exchanged hands each year (less than 20) so they were hard to come by.

Upon Williams death in the 70s Moores had controlling stakes. As of the shareholders meeting in August 1979 the shareholding breakdown was:

So the Moores family were the largest shareholders, owning approximately 20% of the club. This is as opposed to Everton where of the same date of the 2500 shares John Moores owned 751. The next biggest share holder was John Lindop with 92 and half a dozen people with approx 30 shares.

Over the following years Liverpool issued more shares, and as of 1991 David Moores owned 17,850 shares or 51% of the club.

For the Moores family to have a controlling stake from the 70s they'd need control over more than 50% of the issued shares but you later say that the family only owned approximately 20%. Of the five shareholders you mention their aggregate shareholding is about 3,400 out of 12,000. I've seen reference to the Moores family shareholding being in the hands of up to 34 individuals. If the other 29 not referenced owned an average of 100 shares each then that would give the Moores family a majority shareholding of around 6,300 shares out of the 12,000.

Re David Moores increased shareholding that came about following the EGM on 29 June 1994 that increase the authorised share capital from 15,000 to 32,500.

Open Your Eyes Morty!

For the Moores family to have a controlling stake from the 70s they'd need control over more than 50% of the issued shares but you later say that the family only owned approximately 20%. Of the five shareholders you mention their aggregate shareholding is about 3,400 out of 12,000. I've seen reference to the Moores family shareholding being in the hands of up to 34 individuals. If the other 29 not referenced owned an average of 100 shares each then that would give the Moores family a majority shareholding of around 6,300 shares out of the 12,000.

Re David Moores increased shareholding that came about following the EGM on 29 June 1994 that increase the authorised share capital from 15,000 to 32,500.

Sloppy language on my side. What I meant was by owning 20% they were the biggest individual shareholders by a significant number. Especially as the vast majority of shares were individual ownership. Not a majority but a controlling shareholder. This afforded considerable power.

I can provide a list of shareholder with >30 shares tommorow. There are not many. It was published in the echo.

Edit
Moores became majority shareholder in 1991 and then issued shares in 1994 increasing his stake to 58% before then selling 7% to granada

"— The club’s ownership changed hands and was owned for more than 50 years by the Moores family, who made their fortune from the locally based Littlewoods pools and shopping empire."

You've said that is incorrect but the only evidence you've produced is to show that David Moores, on his own, did not hold a majority stake in Liverpool before 1994. But that doesn't refute the assertion that the Moores family owned a majority stake particularly as you've only accounted for the ownership of 4,115 shares out of 12,000 of the issued shares prior to 1994.

Reuters seem to believe that of the 12,000 issued shares more than 6,000 were in the control of the Moores family. David had 3,111 so of the 7,885 shares unaccounted for do you know that at least 2,890 were not in the control of the Moores family or do you just not have any evidence either way?

★★★★★★

Sloppy language on my side. What I meant was by owning 20% they were the biggest individual shareholders by a significant number. Especially as the vast majority of shares were individual ownership. Not a majority but a controlling shareholder. This afforded considerable power.

I can provide a list of shareholder with >30 shares tommorow. There are not many. It was published in the echo.

EditMoores became majority shareholder in 1991 and then issued shares in 1994 increasing his stake to 58% before then selling 7% to granada

Before David Moores acquired the majority of the 17500 increase in share capital in 1994 he owned just over 3,000 out of the existing 12,000 issued shares so didn't individually hold the majority shareholding until 1994.

It might be difficult to get a definitive answer to whether the Moores family, collectively, held the majority shareholding because we may struggle to identify which individuals that includes. Apparently there were up to 34 members of the family who held an interest in Littlewoods, for example.